Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Image-Guided Urologic Surgery

  • 1059 Accesses

Abstract

The paradigm for prostate cancer diagnosis and management that has persisted over the last 20 years has recently come under fire. The controversy stems from high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of small, indolent cancers that pose little threat to a patient’s life yet whose treatment results in considerable side effects. Differentiating low-grade cancers that require no treatment from those that are potentially life threatening poses a considerable challenge. Improvement in imaging of localized prostate cancer with MRI has the potential to improve cancer detection and staging, help differentiate aggressive from indolent cancers, and enable personalized treatment selection. This chapter describes the fundamentals of prostate MRI; it summarizes the individual imaging techniques (T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, and MR-spectroscopic imaging) that together make up state-of-the-art multiparametric MRI, explains the interpretation and reporting of prostate MRI, and discusses the role of MRI in clinical practice (targeted biopsy, active surveillance patient selection, surgical planning, and treatment follow-up).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hudson MA, Bahnson RR, Catalona WJ. Clinical use of prostate specific antigen in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 1989;142:1011–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(17):1156–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics. US mortality volumes 1930-1959, US mortality data 1960–1968. Hyattsville: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Miller AB. New data on prostate-cancer mortality after PSA screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11):1047–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb III RL, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1310–9.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Polascik TJ, Taneja SS. The state of prostate MRI in 2013. Oncology (Williston Park). 2013;27(4):262–70.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hricak H, Williams RD, Spring DB, Moon Jr KL, Hedgcock MW, Watson RA, et al. Anatomy and pathology of the male pelvis by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141(6):1101–10.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6196961.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Steyn JH, Smith FW. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Br J Urol. 1982;54:726–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL. Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1471–80.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T, Takahashi S, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T—comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology. 2007;244:184–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim BS, Kim T-H, Kwon TG, Yoo ES. Comparison of pelvic phased-array versus endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla for local staging of prostate cancer. Yonsei Med J. 2012;53:550–6.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–57.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, Ishill NM, Kuroiwa K, Hricak H. Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2008;246:168–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, Olpin JD, Wu L, Yeh BM, et al. Organ-Confined confined Prostate prostate Cancercancer: Effect effect of Prior prior Transrectal transrectal Biopsy biopsy on Eendorectal MRI and MR Spectroscopic spectroscopic Imagingimaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(4):1079–83. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15385308.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, Kuroiwa K, Ishill NM, Pucar D, et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology. 2006;239:784–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tan CH, Wei W, Johnson V, Kundra V. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:822–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Koh D-M, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1622–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B. High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):W33–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Katahira K, Takahara T, Kwee TC, Oda S, Suzuki Y. Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(1):188–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int. 2011;107:1411–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Delongchamps NB, Beuvon F, Eiss D, Flam T, Muradyan N, Zerbib M, et al. Multiparametric MRI is helpful to predict tumor focality, stage, and size in patients diagnosed with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011;14:232–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tamada T, Sone T, Higashi H, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Kanki A, et al. Prostate cancer detection in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 4–10 ng/mL: diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(3):664–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Isebaert S, Van den Bergh L, Haustermans K, Joniau S, Lerut E, De Wever L, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer localization in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37:1392–401.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu L-M, Xu J-R, Ye Y-Q, Lu Q, Hu J-N. The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:103–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, Machan JT, Renzulli JF. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:W316–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, Lemen L, Bills G, Delworth M, et al. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):374–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011;259:453–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology. 2010;258:488–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Toshimitsu S, Yamashita T, Yamamoto A, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:720–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thörmer G, Otto J, Reiss-Zimmermann M, Seiwerts M, Moche M, Garnov N, et al. Diagnostic value of ADC in patients with prostate cancer: influence of the choice of b values. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1820–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht M, Jager GJ, Witjes JA, de LaRosette J, van der Sanden BPJ, et al. Fast dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of urinary bladder and prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:295–304.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Franiel T, Lüdemann L, Rudolph B, Rehbein H, Staack A, Taupitz M, et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:481–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SWTPJ, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261:46–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Huisman HJ, Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO. Accurate estimation of pharmacokinetic contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI parameters of the prostate—Huisman—2001—Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging—Wiley Online Library. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13:607–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Verma S, Turkbey B, Muradyan N, Rajesh A, Cornud F, Haider MA, et al. Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(6):1277–88. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22623539.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Low RN, Fuller DB, Muradyan N. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced perfusion MRI of prostate cancer: assessment of response to hypofractionated robotic stereotactic body radiation therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:907–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vos EK, Litjens GJS, Kobus T, Hambrock T, de Kaa CAH-V, Barentsz JO, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol. 2013;64(3):448–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection–histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255:89–99.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011;186:1818–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G, Barrett T, Pinto P, Albert PS, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:849.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Awwad HM, Geisel J, Obeid R. The role of choline in prostate cancer. Clin Biochem. 2012;45:1548–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y, Jones KD, Swanson MG, Chang SD, et al. Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2002;223:91–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wetter A, Engl TA, Nadjmabadi D, Fliessbach K, Lehnert T, Gurung J, et al. Combined MRI and MR spectroscopy of the prostate before radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:724–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Weis J, Ahlström H, Hlavcak P, Häggman M, Ortiz-Nieto F, Bergman A. Two-dimensional spectroscopic imaging for pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer: comparison with the step-section histology after radical prostatectomy. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27:87–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T, De Rooij M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology. 2012;265:457–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kobus T, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Wright AJ, Barentsz JO, Heerschap A, et al. In vivo assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 3 T with an endorectal coil. Eur Urol. 2011;60:1074–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S, Sarma MK, Sheng K, King CR, et al. MR spectroscopic imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer with Gleason scores. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36:697–703.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, Wheeler TM, Cormack JB, Sotto CK, et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy – results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology. 2009;251:122–33.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, Renard-Penna R, Misrai V, Thoulouzan M, et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology Scoring System for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):986–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, Sun L, Yaffe MJ, Trachtenberg J, et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2–sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology. 2008;249:900–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rosenkrantz AB, Mendrinos S, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. J Urol. 2012;187(6):2032–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Rastinehad AR, Shah V, Bernardo M, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol. 2012;188:1157–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Isariyawongse BK, Sun L, Banez LL, Robertson C, Polascik TJ, Maloney K, et al. Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 2008;72:882–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology. 2011;259:775–84.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Bouwense S, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol. 2011;61:177–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, Tretiakova M, Antic T, Schmid-Tannwald C, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:1382–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Augustin H, Fritz GA, Ehammer T, Auprich M, Pummer K. Accuracy of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer in comparison to the Partin tables. Acta Radiol. 2009;50:562–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, van Basten JP, van de Kaa CAH, Vreuls W, et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3-Tesla multiparametric MRI for extraprostatic extension in low-, intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1728–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Renard-Penna R, Rouprêt M, Comperat E, Ayed A, Coudert M, Mozer P, et al. Accuracy of high resolution (1.5 tesla) pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging prostate cancer in candidates for radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective study. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:448–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Choi WW, Williams SB, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;185:1645–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lavery HJ, Brajtbord JS, Levinson AW, Nabizada-Pace F, Pollard ME, Samadi DB. Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low-risk prostate cancer is common. Urology. 2011;77:274–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Grossfeld GD, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in imaging test utilization for prostate cancer staging: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. J Urol. 2002;168:491–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Curtis R, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13:71–7.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ukimura O, Hung AJ, Gill IS. Innovations in prostate biopsy strategies for active surveillance and focal therapy. Curr Opin Urol. 2011;21:115–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, Bouwense SA, Huisman H, Yakar D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2010;183:520–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AAJ, Kruecker J, Benjamin CJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011;186:1281–5.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol. 2012;189(1):86–91.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2012;63(1):125–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, Hoogendoorn SP, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, T T, et al. Three-tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):902–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Abd-Alazeez M, Charman SC, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;189:860–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, Rieker P, Popeneciu IV, Simpfendorfer T, et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol. 2011;186:2214–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Baumann M, Mozer P, Daanen V, Troccaz J. Prostate biopsy tracking with deformation estimation. Med Image Anal. 2012;16:562–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Natarajan S, Marks LS, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Macairan ML, Lieu P, et al. Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol. 2011;29:334–42.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):809–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, Glossop N, Singh AK, Choyke P, et al. Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg. 2008;13:255–64.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, Nix J, Volkin D, Hoang A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2152–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Dall’era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62(6):976–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Tosoian JJ, Johnbull E, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Partin AW, et al. Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1218–22.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Conti SL, Dall’era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2009;181:1628–33; discussion 1633–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Smaldone MC, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, Davies BJ. Eligibility for active surveillance and pathological outcomes for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in a large, community based cohort. J Urol. 2010;183:138–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1117–23.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(5):1732–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Borofsky MS, Rosenkrantz AB, Abraham N, Jain R, Taneja SS. Does suspicion of prostate cancer on integrated T2 and diffusion-weighted MRI predict more adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy? Urology. 2013;81(6):1279–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271:368–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173:1938–42.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Ho J, Hoang A, Rastinehad AR, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology. 2013;268(1):144–52.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Giles SL, Morgan VA, Riches SF. Apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictive biomarker of prostate cancer progression: value of fast and slow diffusion components. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):586–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, et al. Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1213–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. McClure TD, Margolis DJA, Reiter RE, Sayre JW, Thomas MA, Nagarajan R, et al. Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology. 2012;262:874–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Rosenkrantz AB, Deng F-M, Kim S, Lim RP, Hindman N, Mussi TC, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MRI for index lesion localization—a multiple-reader study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:830–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Rosenkrantz AB, Scionti SM, Mendrinos S, Taneja SS. Role of MRI in minimally invasive focal ablative therapy for prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:W90–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Sahu M, Scott R, Allen C, et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a phase I/II trial. J Urol. 2011;185:1246–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Dickinson L, Freeman A. Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(6):622–32.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW, Onyebuchi CN, Scardino PT, Scher HI, et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;231:379–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Musio D, Forte V, Gentile V, et al. Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: the role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:1745–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Allen GW, Howard AR, Jarrard DF, Ritter MA. Management of prostate cancer recurrences after radiation therapy-brachytherapy as a salvage option. Cancer. 2007;110:1405–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Hiratsuka J, Higaki A, Higashi H, et al. Locally recurrent prostate cancer after high-dose-rate brachytherapy: the value of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging in localizing tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:408–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Westphalen AC, Reed GD, Vinh PP, Sotto C, Vigneron DB, Kurhanewicz J. Multiparametric 3T endorectal mri after external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36:430–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Morgan VA, Riches SF, Giles S, Dearnaley D, deSouza NM. Diffusion-weighted MRI for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:596–602.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Fütterer JJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2011;59:477–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Geoffrey A. Sonn MD

  2. Department of Radiological Sciences, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Daniel J. A. Margolis MD

  3. Department of Radiology, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Katherine J. To’o MD

  4. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Katherine J. To’o MD

Authors
  1. Geoffrey A. Sonn MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel J. A. Margolis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine J. To’o MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geoffrey A. Sonn MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA

    Joseph C. Liao

  2. Department of Urology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    Li-Ming Su

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sonn, G.A., Margolis, D.J.A., To’o, K.J. (2015). Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer. In: Liao, J., Su, LM. (eds) Advances in Image-Guided Urologic Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1450-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1450-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1449-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1450-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation